Religion in a science forum, one would expect of many argument of a secular nature trying to prove a stance of religious concept. Atheist post their lack of belief there to start debate. Basically cause if an atheist went to a religious forum, he/she would be expunged. Thus in a scientific forum with a section on religion, one can argue/debate the theism vs atheism debate and basically we don't get expunged by a majority of theists.

Since I didn’t want to interrupt the other thread –
If we agree that atheism is not a religion, then why are you atheists posting in the religion section?

(I’m not challenging or provoking anyone. I’d just like to know)

There really is such thing as a dumb question.
You are challenging and provoking.
You are being an idiot and an ignoramous.
Your arrogance in the form a so-called innocent question is a fanatical joke.

Well Godless, I asked my level-headed theist question and you gave me your level-headed atheist answer. So this leads me to the conclusion that the real trouble around this forum isn’t atheist vs. theist, it’s reasonable people vs. unreasonable people.

M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.

R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M: Well, what is the cost?
R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
Pause
R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
M: Thank you.

(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

(Walks down the stairs. Opens door.)

M: I want to complain.
C: You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.
M: No, I want to complain about...
C: If you complain nothing happens, you might as well not bother.
M: Oh!
C: Oh my back hurts, it's not a very fine day and I'm sick and tired of this office.

Well Godless, I asked my level-headed theist question and you gave me your level-headed atheist answer. So this leads me to the conclusion that the real trouble around this forum isn’t atheist vs. theist, it’s reasonable people vs. unreasonable people.

No it aint!!. "Just kidding".

Yea you are right. I've had very good debates and arguments with very level headed theists, and it has always been enlightning to learn together, how some of us define god, or what god is to them.

But what got me all riled up, to pick on Cool Skill was his defenition of what he is, when the question "what religion are you" he introduced himself as a AntiAtheist. Basically he's a biggot of those who don't think like him, same as Water. But they do hate when this is pointed out to their face.

Wrong. You're the biggot and the retard.
AKA, get a life. Igonrance is your speciality. Ignore all all you want. That way you have even less than no idea what your talking about. Although I don't think you can have less than no idea.
Fuck you. Fuck your mother. Fuck off.
Hows that for your argument ASSHOLE?

My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?

Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.
-- Bertrand Russell

And the fish took the bait and now that it's on the hook it fights with everything it got not to get caught. But caught it I did, I precent the face of what happens when a theist is pushed to the wall, and has no way to argue his way out. He lashes out with violence, as he has done throughout history, this show their true color, their way or the highway, the evidence is clear, I've not lost, nor won, I've only demonstrated a calmer nature.

Not you Crimson, you have not attacked me without any justification. though I did provoke him. I have a friendly nature, I even go to church sometimes with girlfriends, I've got no grudges, though when it comes to argue, I do tend to be a bit rude, without the personal insults, I know that not all Christians are alike, just like not all atheists are alike.

The only one with no argument is you. I guess your too fucking stupid to figure it out. You attacked me first ASSHOLE. I guess you are claiming that you have no argument. GO FUCK YOURSELF AND GET A LIFE.

Originally Posted by Godless

And the fish took the bait and now that it's on the hook it fights with everything it got not to get caught. But caught it I did, I precent the face of what happens when a theist is pushed to the wall, and has no way to argue his way out. He lashes out with violence, as he has done throughout history, this show their true color, their way or the highway, the evidence is clear, I've not lost, nor won, I've only demonstrated a calmer nature.

Your so fucking stupid it's not even funny. There is no bait. There is no getting caught. Your self righteous delusion of winning and losing some argument that doesn't exist just goes to show how stupid as fuck you are. You have proven nothing. You have disproven nothing.

All the whole thing is about winning and loosing to you. Bait, fish, getting pushed to the wall. That is not somebody that is trying to come to a conclusion. That is you, a fucking brainless retard arguing for the sake of argueing. The only conclusion you came to: You ARE dumb as FUCK.
So you admit to being an anti theist fanatical biggot. How does it feel to get smoked out of your hole? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

If we agree that atheism is not a religion, then why are you atheists posting in the religion section?

Religion is a subject that deserves discussion from an anthropological and social perspective. How humanity uses religion; how religion affects humanity; what influences religion has on culture; what influences culture has on relgion... and so forth.

Atheists have a unique perspective on religion because of their atheism. Rather than a religiocentric perspective, their view isn't clouded by theistic bias. There are, of course, those that believe theism is wrong and should be opposed, but even these people can provide a different perspective that only the most indoctrinated theists would dismiss out of hand.

There are those, however, that seek to discourage atheists and agnostics from discussing religion in a critical manner. My hypothesis is that they fear the influence that atheists can have if "critical thinking" should be spread among those that are theistic. Not that you can't be theistic and a critical thinker, but something drives people like cool skill who troll threads with atheists having discussions that are critical of religion. Cool skill appears to have the agenda of closing as many of these threads as he can.

Atheists have a unique perspective on religion because of their atheism. Rather than a religiocentric perspective, their view isn't clouded by theistic bias.

But it can be, and quite often is, clouded by atheistic bias. The only
credible perspective is one that is not bias.

There are those, however, that seek to discourage atheists and agnostics from discussing religion in a critical manner. My hypothesis is that they fear the influence that atheists can have if "critical thinking" should be spread among those that are theistic.

I'll answer that if you can tell me why theists post in a science forum?

Because the science forum has a section that is called "Religion" and is described as
"The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life."

Because the science forum has a section that is called "Religion" and is described as
"The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due

The above statement infers that gods exist and men need only accept it as such.

The quote should read,"The outward act or form by which men indicate their assertions of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to which obedience, service, and honor are due"

Because the science forum has a section that is called "Religion" and is described as
"The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due

The above statement infers that gods exist and men need only accept it as such.

The quote should read,"The outward act or form by which men indicate their assertions of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to which obedience, service, and honor are due"

You may now feel addressed.

Go to the moderator with that *should*.
He is a moderator on a *science* forum, mind you.

Because the science forum has a section that is called "Religion" and is described as
"The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due

The above statement infers that gods exist and men need only accept it as such.

The quote should read,"The outward act or form by which men indicate their assertions of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to which obedience, service, and honor are due"

You may now feel addressed.

Well not really, after all what is a religion without some kind of God. Your God might be the television but still it's your God. So I think the statement is correct if your posting in the Religion section. You can't have a Religion without a God or Gods. If you don't believe in some type of God then don't post in this section. Your God might even be the collective combination of burnt potato chips. Your religion might be based on Spud worship.

The idea of God exists, there is not doubt about that. Recognising the existence of God thus refers not to the actual factual existence of God, but rather to the believe that the idea of God matches an actual entity.

Thus follows, religion means recognising the existence of the idea God as being represented in reality. This definition applies to both theists and atheists (though the former might not admit it so easily), for the first also project their ideas, their faith unto reality.

Go to the moderator with that *should*.
He is a moderator on a *science* forum, mind you.

I'm only pointing out why your post cannot follow in regards to that quote as it does not assume gods exist, but instead, demands it.

So I think the statement is correct if your posting in the Religion section.

Only if one is under the impression gods do in fact exist. It further contradicts itself due to the fact that a variety of gods are demanded to exist, not just one, as you've pointed out (Spud Worship.)

If you follow that logic further, all theists MUST be atheists, as they cannot acknowledge the existence of any other gods but their own.

The idea of God exists, there is not doubt about that. Recognising the existence of God thus refers not to the actual factual existence of God, but rather to the believe that the idea of God matches an actual entity.

That is not the same definition as was quoted above. You've added the word "idea" into the definition, thus changing it to a more correct statement, like the one I provided.

The word God within the definition of the word religion refers to the idea God to atheists, and to God, to theists. The current definition is open to interpretation and thus suits the character, I think, here in the current setting.

Any adaptation that allows for this ambiguity and looks nicer is of course welcome.

The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life.

^That is the definition of religion, currently. I bolded out the 'God' references for you. Within this definition, the word God is ambiguous. To a theist it means God, the actual being, to an atheist, the idea.

religon, like science, is a topic that is created, diffined and studied by human beings. therefore anyone no matter whether you are thiest or athiest can disscus matters of religion and science freely.